coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Białystok.
5.  On 8 December 1989 the applicant lodged a motion for the distribution of her parents’ estate with the Białystok District Court.
6.  On 27 July 1990 the court assigned an expert land surveyor to prepare an opinion on the case. His opinion was submitted on 20 August 1990.
7.  On 1 October 1990 the court held a hearing which was adjourned in order to establish the assets of the estate.
8.  On 7 October 1990 the court assigned an expert to establish the value of the estate. He submitted his opinion to the court on 17 December 1990.
9.  The delivery of the judgment was adjourned until 20 February 1991. On that date the hearings in the case were re-opened.
10.  Hearings were held on 14 May, 10 and 24 September 1991.
11.  On 24 September 1991 the court admitted an opinion of an expert in building matters. On 24 October 1991 an inspection of the property was conducted. On 12 November 1991 the expert submitted his opinion.
12.  On 2 December 1991 the court admitted an opinion of another expert land surveyor, which was submitted on 10 December 1991.
13.  On 31 December 1991 the court delivered a decision on the distribution of the estate. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 27 March 1992 the second-instance court quashed the decision and remitted it to the District Court for re-examination.
15.  On 8 October 1992 the court assigned another expert land surveyor.
16.  On 25 March 1993 the court assigned an expert in building matters.
17. The court held hearings on 1 and 15 February and 1 March 1994.
18.  On 1 March 1994 the court admitted another opinion to be prepared by two experts in building matters. The opinion was submitted on 6 June 1994.
19.  On 15 February 1995 the court decided to admit evidence in the form of an inspection of the property to be carried out in the presence of an expert land surveyor. The inspection was conducted on 26 May 1994. On 23 June 1995 the expert opinion was submitted to the court.
20.  On 20 December 1995 the court admitted an additional opinion of an expert land surveyor and of an expert in building matters. The opinion was submitted on 21 January 1996.
21.  On 29 January 1996 the court decided to admit another opinion of an expert land surveyor, which was submitted on 15 February 1996.
22.  On 28 June 1996 the court assigned an expert in agriculture. His opinion was submitted on 6 September 1996.
23.  On 4 April 1997 the court admitted a supplementary opinion of the expert in building matters. It was submitted on 13 May 1997.
24.  A hearing on 22 September 1997 was adjourned in order to hear an expert. Another hearing was scheduled for 27 October 1997.
25.  On 30 December 1997 the court decided to admit an opinion of yet another expert land surveyor to verify the previous opinion.
26.  On 25 June 1998 the Białystok District Court delivered a judgment excluding the applicant from the succession. She appealed.
27.  On 20 October 1998 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
28.  On 31 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to accept the cassation appeal for examination.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chervona Kamyanka, the Kirovograd region.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) against his former employer, Mine no. 5 of the “Ukrrosobladnannya” State Mining Company (“the Mine no. 5,” шахта №5 ТПВ „Укррособладнання”) for disability benefits and other payments. On 9 October 1998 the court awarded the applicant UAH 15,668.80.[1]
7.  On 23 October 1998 the court bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings for the above judgment, which were subsequently transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького районного управління юстиції).
8.  On 13 August 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against Mine no. 5. On 4 February 2003 the Commercial Court discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings, having approved the friendly settlement between the mine and its creditors.
9.  In 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court against the Bailiffs for their omissions in enforcing the court judgment of 9 October 1998. On 13 August 2004 the court dismissed his claims, having found no such omissions. On 1 December 2004 the Krasnyy Luch Court returned the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 13 August 2004 as “not lodged” because of his failure to rectify its procedural shortcomings. The applicant did not appeal against this court decision.
10.  Between 27 August 1999 and 3 November 2004 the applicant received about half of the judgment debt (UAH 7,328.83[2]) due to him in some twenty instalments.
11.  The remainder of the debt (UAH 8,340.00[3]) was paid to the applicant in three instalments of 20 December 2004, 15 March 2005 and 12 August 2005.
12.  On 18 August 2005 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as completed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Lokhvitsya, Poltava region, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant worked as a saleswoman in the “Kram” shop at the State-owned “Lokhvitskiy Spirtkombinat” distillery.
6.  In July 1998, in accordance with the findings of an inspection, which revealed the shortage of goods, the applicant was dismissed from her position.
7.  On 21 August 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lokhvytskiy District Court against her former employer challenging her dismissal.
8.  On 10 November 1998 the court found the case ready for examination and scheduled the hearing for 27 November 1998.
9.  On 21 November 1998, following the results of the inspection, a criminal case was instituted.
10.  On 27 November 1998 the civil proceedings in the applicant's case were suspended until the investigation of the criminal case was completed.
11.  On 25 March 1999 the criminal proceedings were terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti in the applicant's actions.
12.  On 14 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned upon the applicant's request.
13.  On 17 December 2001 the court requested the Lokhvitsky District Prosecutor's Office to provide information about the results of the investigation.
14.  On 20 December 2001 the court was informed that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been terminated.
15.  On 14 June 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing.
16.  On 14 June 2002 the applicant modified her claim.
17.  On 23 July 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing in order to allow the defendant to study the new documents submitted by the applicant.
18.  On 2 October 2002 the court postponed the hearing due to the failure of the defendant's representative to appear.
19.  On 22 November 2002 the hearing was adjourned due to illness of the defendant's representative.
20.  On 12 August 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered her reinstatement in the position of a saleswoman. It also awarded the applicant UAH 16,500 in salary arrears and UAH 1,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
21.  On 18 August 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal left the defendant's appeal against the above decision without a course and gave him the time to rectify the procedural shortcomings.
22.  On 18 December 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the first instance court had failed to examine all the factual circumstances of the case.
23.  On 1 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decision of the court of appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The Supreme Court held that the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal was itself competent to consider the merits of the case.
24.  On 27 July 2005 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the decision of 12 August 2003. It rejected the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage but upheld the remainder of that decision.
25.  On 14 November 2005 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment.
26.  In April 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment in her favour remained unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the village of Zhodino, the Minsk Region of Belarus.
5.  The applicant is a former employee of the municipal enterprise Teplovodokanal in the town of Neryungri (Муниципальное предприятие «Управление «Тепловодоканал» г. Нерюнгри). Before her retirement she filed a claim for salary arrears with the Labour Disputes Board (Комиссия по трудовым спорам) of Teplovodokanal.
6.  On 19 January, 3 February and 18 May 1998 the Labour Disputes Board found in the applicant's favour and awarded her salary arrears totalling 96,684.67 Russian roubles (RUR). The decisions became final immediately as no appeal lay against them. On the basis of the decisions in the applicant's favour, specific enforcement documents – certificates from the Labour Disputes Board (удостоверения Комиссии по трудовым спорам) – were issued. On 20 May 1998 the applicant forwarded the certificates to the bailiffs' service with a view to execution.
7.  The decisions of the Labour Disputes Board of 19 January, 3 February and 18 May 1998 were enforced in full by 5 January 2001.  As their execution had been delayed, the applicant filed court claims against her former employer requesting index-linking of the awards.
8.  On 16 March 2001 the Neryungri Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) granted her claims in part and awarded her RUR 30,084. On the same date a writ of execution was issued. Later the applicant appealed against the judgment as she was not satisfied with the amount of the award.
9.  On 4 May 2001 the bailiffs' service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the writ of execution of 16 March 2001. Three days later the bailiffs' service levied execution on the debtor's account.
10.   The judgment of 16 March 2001 was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) on 11 July 2001.
11.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs' service closed the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the salary arrears had been paid to the applicant on the basis of the Labour Disputes Board certificates.
12.  On 27 April 2002 the Neryungri Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that it had submitted a request for supervisory review of the bailiffs' service's decision to close the enforcement proceedings, since they concerned not the payment of the salary arrears, but their index-linking pursuant to the judgment of 16 March 2001.
13.  The enforcement proceedings were reopened on 1 March 2006.
14.  On 9 March 2006 the bailiffs' service transferred the sum of RUR 30,084 to the applicant by postal order.
15.  The enforcement proceedings were closed on 4 May 2006.
16.  On 17 May 2006 the post office transferred the sum of RUR 30,084 back to the sender because the applicant had refused to take receipt of it.
17.  On 7 July 2006 the bailiffs' service again transferred the sum of RUR 30,084 to the applicant by postal order. It appears that the applicant again refused to accept it.
4.  The applicants were born in 1933, 1953, 1946 and 1968 respectively and live in Krasnyy Kut, the Lugansk region.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On various dates the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) seeking salary arrears and various payments from the State Open Joint Stock Mining Company “Krasnokutska” (“the Company,” ДВАТ шахта “Краснокутська” ДП ДХК “Донбасантрацит”).
7.  On 5 March 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 8,906.23[1] in favour of the first applicant.
8.  On 21 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 1,881.63[2] in favour of the second applicant.
9.  On 14 June 2000 and 8 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 1,548.42[3] and UAH 417.53[4] respectively in favour of the third applicant.
10.  On 21 May 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 2,843.41[5] in favour of the fourth applicant.
11.  The judgments in favour of the applicants became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.
12.  On 13 August 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.
13.  On 4 February 2003 the Commercial Court approved a friendly settlement between the Company and its creditors and discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings.
14.  The first, the second and the fourth applicant received their judgments debts in several instalments, the final payments being made in August 2005. The third applicant received the debt due to her by the judgment of 1 June 2000 in August 2004 and in August 2005 - the debt by the judgment of 8 February 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant instituted two sets of proceedings in the Novogrodivskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivska Mining Company No. 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 „Новогродівська”) – a State-owned enterprise – to recover salary arrears and compensation for damage to his health.
6.  On 8 and 23 February 2001 the Novogrodovsky Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him, respectively, 2,615.30[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) and UAH 28,513.58[2]. These judgments were sent for enforcement to the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції).
7.  In July 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 23 February 2001 in his favour. On 28 August 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 23 February 2001. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 1 November 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
8.  The judgments in the applicant's favour were enforced by instalments, the last amount being paid on 3 September 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) against his employer, the State Open Joint Stock Mining Company “Izvestiya” (“the Company,” ДВАТ шахта „Ізвестія”), for salary arrears and other payments. On 14 June 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 8,185.11.[1] This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
7.  On 26 June 2000 the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings for the above judgment.
8.  On 29 October 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.
9.  On 28 July 2003 the Commercial Court approved a friendly settlement between the Company and its creditors.
10.  On 3 December 2004 the applicant received his judgment debt and the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as completed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 3 December 1999 and 6 February 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) awarded the applicant UAH 1,380.34[1] and UAH 397.35[2] respectively in salary arrears and other payments against his former employer, the State Open Joint Stock Company “Krasnolutska Avtobaza” (ДВАТ “Краснолуцька автобаза” ДХК „Донбасантрацит”). These judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.
7.  The applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 3 December 1999 on 1 November 2004 and on 14 February 2005 - by the judgment of 6 February 2002.
8.  On 14 February 2005 the Bailiffs' Service explained to the applicant that the delays in the enforcement of the judgments in his favour had been caused by the debtor's reorganization, the holding of its assets in a tax lien and the statutory moratorium on the forced sale of State property.
4.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1923, 1949, 1961, 1955 and 1950 respectively and live in Tokat.
5.  On 21 November 1957 the Koruluk village administration, the Ministry of Treasury and the Forest Directorate requested the annulment of the record in the title deed registry of the applicants’ father’s and other persons’ (hereinafter “the defendants”) ownership of four plots of land (nos. 49, 50, 51 and 52) situated in the village of Koruluk.
6.  On 4 November 1971, 2 December 1975 and 16 March 1989 the Bafra Cadastre Court gave a decision on the merits of the case. Each of these decisions was in turn quashed by the Court of Cassation.
7.  In the course of the proceedings several defendants including Mr Esat Namlı, who was the husband of the second applicant and the father of the remaining applicants, died. Shortly thereafter, in 1990, the applicants became parties to the proceedings.
8.  On 28 November 1996 the Bafra Cadastre Court decided to annul the record in the title deed registry except for a part of plot no. 49 which remained under the name of the defendants.
9.  On 10 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
10.  On 18 December 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of its decision. This decision was not served on the applicants. However, it was sent to the registry of the Bafra Cadastre Court on 4 January 1999.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Hajnówka.
5.  On 15 February 1999 the applicant requested that administrative proceedings be instituted for the purpose of fixing compensation for a partial expropriation of his real property in 1995, involving two small plots designated for the construction of a road.
6.  On 15 March 1999 the Head of the Hajnówka District instituted such proceedings. On 28 July 1999 the Head of the Hajnówka District fixed an amount of compensation to be paid by the Hajnówka Municipality for these plots. The applicant contested the amount of compensation. On 24 September 1999 the Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed the decision and discontinued the proceedings. It was of the view that no purpose was served by continuing the proceedings. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 5 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the contested decision, finding that the conclusion of the Board had no proper legal or factual basis.
8.  On 29 September 2000 the Podlesie Governor quashed the first-instance decision of 28 July 1999 and refused to pay compensation. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 14 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Governor’s decision. It considered that it was unlawful in that it had infringed the prohibition of reformationis in peius as it applied to administrative proceedings.
10.  On 23 May 2001 the Podlesie Governor again quashed the decision of 28 July 1999 and remitted the case for re-examination. On 15 October 2001 the Head of the Hajnówka District refused to determine the amount of compensation. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 27 November 2001 the Podlesie Governor quashed the decision given on 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for re-examination.
12.  On 31 December 2001 the Head of the Hajnówka District again refused to determine the amount of compensation. The applicant contested this decision. On 14 February 2002 the Podlesie Governor upheld it. The applicant appealed against the Governor’s decision.
13.  On 14 November 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Governor’s decision of 14 February 2002 and remitted the case for re-examination. The court considered that the authorities had entirely disregarded its opinion on issues relevant to the case as well as instructions on how to proceed with the case, as containedin its earlier judgments.
14.  By a decision of 26 May 2003 the Head of the Hajnówka District fixed at PLN 29,763 the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 22 April 2000 the applicant, a lawyer and member of the administrative board of the Istanbul Human Rights Association, organised a demonstration in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul, in the form of a march followed by a statement to the press, to protest against plans for “F-type” prisons.
6.  At about 12 noon a group of forty to fifty persons brandishing placards and signs gathered in the square, under the leadership of the applicant and Eren Keskin, a lawyer and President of the Istanbul Human Rights Association. The police asked the group to disperse and to end the gathering, and informed them via a loudspeaker that the demonstration, for which advance notice had not been submitted, was unlawful and was likely to cause public-order problems at a busy time of day.
7.  The demonstrators refused to obey and attempted to continue marching towards the police, who dispersed the group using a kind of tear gas known as “pepper spray”. The police arrested thirty-nine demonstrators, including the applicant, and took them to a police station.
8.  After an identity check, and in view of her profession, the applicant was released at 12.45 p.m.
9.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu prosecutor’s office against the head of the Istanbul security police and the police officers concerned, alleging that she had been ill-treated through the use of pepper spray, unlawfully arrested and prevented from making the public statement scheduled for the end of the demonstration.
10.  On 29 June 2000 the public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings on the ground that no offence had been committed.
11.  On 25 July 2000 the applicant applied to the Beyoğlu Assize Court seeking to have that decision set aside.
12.  On 25 September 2000 the Assize Court upheld the decision that there was no case to answer.